Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

PZL104

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Good

About PZL104

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austria

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wow, what a terrific build. Very impressive in every sense. Camo, weathering etc.
  2. Very nice model The only thing I've noticed is that the windshield is in the supersonic instead of the subsonic (takeoff and landing) position and the poor pilots wouldn't be able to see the runway in this config
  3. Very nicely done Harrier. Doesn't look like 1/72 scale!
  4. A very nicely built and painted 109. Really top! The antenna looks very realistic now, the only remaining item are the slats. They shouldn't change their angle. They are supposed to simply move forward a bit to provide a gap between the wing leading edge and the slats. https://www.flickr.com/photos/108070235@N05/37107692425/
  5. Another very nicely done Airfix Hunter. Excellent work. Congratulations and a great way to diplay it!
  6. That's a terrific build! Very nice and impressive what you've got out of the old Monogram kit! I just threw away my Hobbyboss F-84F because it has so many shape and other irreparable errors Concerning details, e.g. intake and gear bays the Monogram kit is way better.
  7. Absolutely stunning. I wanted to build the very same Hunter in the Oman camo, but looking at this magnificent one makes me re-think my decision, and if it turns out half as nice as yours, I'de be very happy!
  8. Tiny correction; The 'flaperons' on the Typhoon are actually elevons. (There are no flight control surfaces which act as flaps on the Typhoon)
  9. This would be a the common flight controls position for most airplanes once there's no more hydraulic pressure left and there's a crosswind on the apron. The rudder is being moved/positioned by the wind and the elevons etc. are drooped. The Typhoon automatically goes into lift dump as soon as the engines are shut down, which means that the foreplanes are deflected fully (60°) down (so they don't interfere with the ladder) and the elevons are fully deflected up (20°) which is, in case of the Typhoon, the parked position for the actuators. That's why the Typhoon elevons have the rather unusual elevon deflection.
  10. What is really surprising to me is the fact that (3rd photo in post #6) the Balkenkreuz on the wings is located in different positions and different angles on each of those three Fws.
  11. Oh, now that's nice to know! I initially mentioned that the ICM kit incorrectly shows the first stage of the rotors instead of the stators but I thought that this would be over the top. Nice to see that the replacement has corrected this issue as well
  12. A few weeks ago I bought the ICM MiG-25RBT. It's not an exactly elegant plane, but it's pure speed due to the really big engines. So that's the main reason why I was interested in this kit. Today I was working on the engines, the most impressive part of the MiG-25, and noticed that ICM has the engine intake trunking and the first stage compressor wrong! On all turbojet engines like the Tumanski R-15, the compressor size is usually the same size as the turbine, and the engine intake is as wide, or a tad wider, than the compressor. On the ICM MiG-25 the compressor is only 1/4 the size of the turbine and the intake trunking noticable tapers until it reaches the tiny business jet engine sized compressor. This looks rather bad, especially since the engines are the hallmark of the MiG-25. So I tried to find out if the much more expensive Kitty Hawk version is any better. To my surprise I've read that the parts fit isn't good (excellent on the ICM version) and that there's no intake trunking and no compressor at all! If this is actually the case, this would mean that you can build this kit only with engine covers installed and this rather important fact would have been mentioned in the various kit reviews. Edit: After searching for more info, it looks like there's really nothing inside the Kitty Hawk MiG-25. So I consider myself blessed with the ICM version
  13. Although it lacks the elegance of a 'real' Mirage, you did an absolutely brilliant job with the conversion, camo and weathering. A top job
  14. To be honest, if Troffa wouldn't have mentioned it, I wouldn't have noticed this tiny error since the smaller (and IMO more elegant) chord stabilizers are much more noticable and you simply don't expect these to be cut off. FYI, the 'lightning rods' don't have anything to do with lightning. These static dischargers are fitted to avoid problems with the navigation and communication equipment. when flying through precipitation.
  15. A very nice paint scheme and a very nice build. @Troffa, his F-16 does have the correct small stabilizers (trailing edges are flush with the speedbrakes) but for some reason the outboard edges are slightly cut off.
×
×
  • Create New...